4 thoughts on “Here's Why You Don't Get A Health Insurance Discount For Your Healthy Lifestyle”

I would love to get a discount on my health insurance because I cost less to insure because I lead a healthy lifestyle. I, too, saw the piece on The Daily Show and had a similar reaction. I was then driven to do research on the topic. I found very little. My question to you is; you said it was all about money. How is it that healthy people getting a discount on their health insurance going to affect the 3 charities that opposed the bill? The two things just don’t seem to connect. Have you been able to find out more info about HR 3472 and the real reason why the Ada, ACS, and AHA opposed the bill? Because if you are going to boycott charities you should not decide to based on one small piece on a news comedy show. I am not saying the info on the Daily show is false, I know it’s not. But it should lead you to look into it more and not just take things they say at face value. One reason I found while doing some research was that the ADA opposed the bill because the wording of it was such that it would be made possible for the insurance companies to raise rates on people with pre-existing conditions, like diabetes, and to discriminate against people who can not afford to buy healthy foods (which, as a healthy eater, I know are more expensive) and a gym membership. Or people who simply work too much trying to keep themselves afloat financially to be able to pursue a healthy lifestyle. I just wanted to propose some ideas to get you thinking. I am not being hostile or argumentative. I would have benefited from this bill. But I can not make rash decisions about a topic and not do research. So I am just sharing.

I was pretty pissed off when I saw the interview with the Congresswoman and “may” have reacted emotionally.

Re your question, I believe that the 3 charities’ problem with the bill comes more from the fact that they were left out of such a major health promotion / disease prevention initiative. These charities are big business and may have perceived this bill as a threat to their dominance of the health promotion industry. An even more skeptical theory is that this bill would do nothing to fill their coffers and might improve the health of Americans, lower the rates of the diseases they “represent” and reduce their income.

Or…it could be like you said and the bill was flawed and the charities opposed it based on this reason.

It all boils down to money. Who wouldn’t want a healthy mule to carry the same load aka insurance premium as a sick mule for the same pay? After all, the healthy mule will out live the sick mule therefore making the farmer aka insurance/government funded more money? It makes business sense. Sucks, but it’s the truth!